SSA Pacific

National Labor Relations Board - Administrative Judge Opinions

Feb 27, 2019

20-CA-151433 (N.L.R.B. Feb. 27, 2019)

JD(SF)-06-19
Port of West Sacramento
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
BEFORE THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
DIVISION OF JUDGES
SAN FRANCISCO BRANCH OFFICE
SSA PACIFIC, INC.
and Cases 20-CA-151433
20-CA-156741
RONI SIMISOLA, an Individual 20-CA-156786
JOHN STUBBE, an Individual
ALAN COUCH, an Individual
PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION151
and Cases 20-CA-153169
20-CA-156732
RONI SIMISOLA, an Individual 20-CA-156792
JOHN STUBBE, an Individual
ALAN COUCH, an Individual
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND
WAREHOUSE UNION, LOCAL 18
and Cases 20-CB-151490
20-CB-156767
RONI SIMISOLA, an Individual 20-CB-156787
JOHN STUBBE, an Individual
ALAN COUCH, an Individual
David B. Reeves, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Robert S. Remar and Kirsten C. Donovan, Esqs.,
for Respondent International Longshore and
Warehouse Union, Local 18.
Nicole Buffalano and Todd Amidon, Esqs.,
for Respondent Pacific Maritime Association.
Joseph M. Galosic, Esq., for Respondent SSA Pacific, Inc.
JD(SF)-06-19
2
BENCH DECISION ON REMAND AND CERTIFICATION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
5
MARA-LOUISE ANZALONE, Administrative Law Judge. I heard this remanded case on
January 24, 2019 via telephonic conference. At issue are allegations, remanded to me on
November 21, 2018, that Respondent International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 18
(Local 18) violated Sections 8(b)(1)(A) and Respondents Pacific Maritime Association (PMA)
and SSA Marine, Inc. (SSA) violated Sections 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as 10
amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 151, et. seq. (the Act), in each case by maintaining an overly broad
hiring hall rule. The challenged rule, known as Identified Casuals Dispatch Rule 12 (Rule 12),
provides as follows:
12. Casuals causing a disturbance at the Dispatch Hall or at any other 15
job-related area shall have their dispatch privileges permanently
revoked.
(GC Exh. 14) The two remanded allegations are set forth at paragraphs 9, 15(a) and 18 of the
amended consolidated complaint (complaint). Pursuant to the Board’s remand order, I am 20
charged with considering the remanded allegations in light of the Board’s decision in The Boeing
Company, 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017).
At the January 24, 2019 hearing in this matter, Counsel for the General Counsel stated
that, based on the Boeing decision, the General Counsel considers complaint paragraphs 9, 15(a) 25
and 18 to lack merit and believes that they should be dismissed. (See Tr. 2194, ll. 11-25, 2195,
ll. 1-15) (“the position of the General Counsel is that the ALJ and the Board should dismiss the
remaining allegations of the complaint”). Based on this representation by Counsel for the
General Counsel, Local 18 and PMA (joined by SSA) orally moved to dismiss the respective
complaint allegations remaining against them. Counsel for the General Counsel opposed neither 30
motion, and I subsequently issued a bench decision pursuant to Section 102.35(a)(10) of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations, granting Respondents’ motions and recommending the dismissal
of complaint paragraphs 9, 15(a) and 18.
In accordance with Section 102.45, I certify the accuracy of, and attach hereto as 35
“Appendix A,” the portion of the transcript containing this decision.1 The Conclusions of Law
and Order provisions are set forth below.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
40
1. By maintaining Identified Casuals Dispatch Rule 12, Respondent International Longshore
Warehouse Union Local 18 did not engage in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of
section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, as alleged in paragraphs 9 and 18 of the complaint.

1 The bench decision appears in uncorrected form at pp. 2206 through 2208 and p. 2210 of the
transcript. The final version, after correction of oral and transcriptional errors, is attached as Appendix A
to this certification.
JD(SF)-06-19
3
2. By maintaining Identified Casuals Dispatch Rule 12, Respondent Pacific Maritime
Association did not engage in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of section 8(a)(1) of
the Act, as alleged in paragraphs 9 and 15(a) of the complaint.
3. By maintaining Identified Casuals Dispatch Rule 12, Respondent SSA Pacific, Inc. did not 5
engage in an unfair labor practice within the meaning of section 8(a)(1) of the Act, as alleged in
paragraphs 9 and 15(a) of the complaint.
On the findings of fact and conclusions of law herein, and on the entire record in this case,
I issue the following recommended210
ORDER
The remanded complaint allegations set forth at complaint paragraphs 9, 15(a) and 18 are
dismissed.15
Dated: Washington, D.C. February 27, 2019
Mara-Louise Anzalone
Administrative Law Judge

2 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s Rules and Regulations, the
findings, conclusions, and recommended Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted
by the Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
APPENDIX A
This decision is issued pursuant to Section 102.35(a)(10) and Section 102.45 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations. On September 13, 2016, I issued my initial recommended
decision in this case, which I found in part the Respondent Employers violated 8(a)(1) of the Act,
and Respondent Union violated 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act, in each case, by maintaining a hiring hall
dispatch rule that we refer to as ID Casual Rule 12. My rationale for finding the rule unlawful,
as maintained by the Respondent Employers was based on the then-in-effect standard for
employer-promulgated facially neutral rules under 8(a)(1) of the Act, set forth in Lutheran
Heritage, 343 NLRB 646 (2004). On December 14, 2017, the Board issued its Boeing decision
(that we refer to as the new standard or the revised standard) at 365 NLRB No. 154. It partially
overruled Lutheran Heritage, and announced its revised standard for evaluating facially neutral
employer-promulgated rules. On April 3, 2018, the Board issued a decision in this case,
affirming my recommended decision on all but two of the allegations; those are the allegations
set forth at complaint paragraphs 9, 15(a) and 18 related to ID Casual Rule 12. It severed and
retained those allegations for further consideration.
On October 22, 2018, the Board issued a Notice to Show Cause as to why the two
severed allegations should not be remanded to me to consider under Boeing. No party responded
by the Board’s stated deadline. On November 21, 2018, the Board remanded the matter to me
for the purpose of reopening the record, if necessary, preparing a supplemental decision
addressing the complaint allegations affected by Boeing, setting forth credibility resolutions,
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommended order. On November 28, 2018, I issued
an order allowing the parties the opportunity to move to reopen the record in this proceeding for
the purpose of taking evidence on the issues raised by the application of the Boeing standard to
the case. PMA, joined by SSA, did so.
Now, based on the motion that is being offered by Respondent ILWU Local 18, I am
finding that, by maintaining ID Casual Rule 12, set forth in paragraphs 9 and 18 of the
complaint, Respondent, International Longshore Warehouse Union Local 18, did not engage in
an unfair labor practice within the meaning of section 8(b)(1)(A) of the Act. I further find that,
by maintaining Rule 12, as set forth in paragraphs 9 and 15(a) of the complaint, Respondent
Pacific Maritime Association and Respondent SSA Pacific, Inc. did not engage in an unfair labor
practice within the meaning of section 8(a)(1) of the Act.